T Nation

Hypocrisy

  1. Does anyone else find it annoying when politicians blame government for the ills of society and as soon as they win a seat in office they enjoy all the perks of being a politician (ie. pension and high salary) ? You never hear any party champion ending politician’s pension plans or cutting their own salaries. How can either party champion fiscal prudence yet increase their pensions and their salaries? I guess they can argue that they are able to get bi-partisan supported bills passed when those bills raise their salaries.

  2. Why do politicians who champion the private sector and all its potential to generate wealth and new ideas never have the intestinal fortitude to leave government? I am thinking of the Paul Ryan’s of the world who espouse free market capitalism and the perils of a bloated government yet spend their whole career as a career politician. Its hypocrisy for them to enjoy their career in government yet demonize the hand that feeds them. I have more respect for leaders like LBJ who are of the opinion that their is value and need for a strong government while making a career out of public service.

  3. It is pathetic for those who enter political office demonizing it and never leaving while championing the entrepeneurial nature of the private sector yet never having the desire to work in the private sector or start their own business.

Side note: Unrelated amazing article by Arthur Schlesinger “Folly?s Antidote”

Ask those who support term limits as long as they’re not retroactive.

You are way too observant for this board :slight_smile:

The hypocrisy of our two big parties is readily apparent and something I try to point out as often as possible because I truly believe our system features two “parties” who are essentially the same.

Case in point: Barack Obama argued against raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator, but is for it now. Republicans who voted FOR it under GWB are now staunchly against it and vice versea with the Democrats.

Both sides champion small government when out of power, but grow the government to the ways they see fit while in power. You see it a whole lot with posters on here as well. They will completely defend one side and then attack the other even if they end up doing the same thing. Moral of the story is both parties are fans of government intrusion as long as it is government intruding in the ways they think are best. Both parties are fans of limited government if we are talking about limiting or abolishing the governments powers to do things they think are bad.

Neither party is fiscally responsible, neither party wants the government out of your life. They just simply don’t. The sooner people realize this the better imo.

[quote]H factor wrote:
The hypocrisy of our two big parties is readily apparent and something I try to point out as often as possible because I truly believe our system features two “parties” who are essentially the same.

Case in point: Barack Obama argued against raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator, but is for it now. Republicans who voted FOR it under GWB are now staunchly against it and vice versea with the Democrats.

Both sides champion small government when out of power, but grow the government to the ways they see fit while in power. You see it a whole lot with posters on here as well. They will completely defend one side and then attack the other even if they end up doing the same thing. Moral of the story is both parties are fans of government intrusion as long as it is government intruding in the ways they think are best. Both parties are fans of limited government if we are talking about limiting or abolishing the governments powers to do things they think are bad.

Neither party is fiscally responsible, neither party wants the government out of your life. They just simply don’t. The sooner people realize this the better imo. [/quote]Great post, but it won’t make any difference who realizes it or not.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
The hypocrisy of our two big parties is readily apparent and something I try to point out as often as possible because I truly believe our system features two “parties” who are essentially the same.

Case in point: Barack Obama argued against raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator, but is for it now. Republicans who voted FOR it under GWB are now staunchly against it and vice versea with the Democrats.

Both sides champion small government when out of power, but grow the government to the ways they see fit while in power. You see it a whole lot with posters on here as well. They will completely defend one side and then attack the other even if they end up doing the same thing. Moral of the story is both parties are fans of government intrusion as long as it is government intruding in the ways they think are best. Both parties are fans of limited government if we are talking about limiting or abolishing the governments powers to do things they think are bad.

Neither party is fiscally responsible, neither party wants the government out of your life. They just simply don’t. The sooner people realize this the better imo. [/quote]Great post, but it won’t make any difference who realizes it or not.
[/quote]

You’re probably right. Entrenched power is entrenched power. That said I refuse to believe that I will be better off if I jump in like so many others and just pick whichever side seems less evil to me. I do think a better way CAN happen and I believe acknowledging and accepting what I said just might get us there sometime.

Pipe dream I know, but don’t wake me up :slight_smile:

Richard Hofstadter still matters and everyone should read his book The American Political Tradition.

Very relevant to this topic and written in 1948.

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

  1. Does anyone else find it annoying when politicians blame government for the ills of society and as soon as they win a seat in office they enjoy all the perks of being a politician (ie. pension and high salary) ? You never hear any party champion ending politician’s pension plans or cutting their own salaries. How can either party champion fiscal prudence yet increase their pensions and their salaries? I guess they can argue that they are able to get bi-partisan supported bills passed when those bills raise their salaries.

  2. Why do politicians who champion the private sector and all its potential to generate wealth and new ideas never have the intestinal fortitude to leave government? I am thinking of the Paul Ryan’s of the world who espouse free market capitalism and the perils of a bloated government yet spend their whole career as a career politician. Its hypocrisy for them to enjoy their career in government yet demonize the hand that feeds them. I have more respect for leaders like LBJ who are of the opinion that their is value and need for a strong government while making a career out of public service.

  3. It is pathetic for those who enter political office demonizing it and never leaving while championing the entrepeneurial nature of the private sector yet never having the desire to work in the private sector or start their own business. [/quote]

What’s your definition of hypocrisy, there seems to be two definitions. 1) Whatever the person you don’t like is, and 2) the actual definition.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< What’s your definition of hypocrisy, there seems to be two definitions. 1) Whatever the person you don’t like is, and 2) the actual definition. [/quote]LOL!! And a big touche for dearest Christopher. LOL!

[quote]H factor wrote:

You’re probably right. Entrenched power is entrenched power. That said I refuse to believe that I will be better off if I jump in like so many others and just pick whichever side seems less evil to me. I do think a better way CAN happen and I believe acknowledging and accepting what I said just might get us there sometime.

Pipe dream I know, but don’t wake me up :slight_smile: [/quote]

Lots of folks, at some time in their lives, realize exactly what you are talking about – that both parties (and career politicians in general) will sell them out at the drop of a hat, betray their own avowed principles, and keep driving their society down a very harmful path.

But when the elections roll around, they remember that they more or less associate with X tribe, and they really really don’t want Y tribe to win.

Of course few politicians truly think small government is the answer. If someone wants to get to a national office it indicates that they feel that it’s either (A) a path to personal advancement or (B) that national government is able to fix things. I mean, people want to, generally, make money or make a difference or some combination of the two.

It’s the bitch about democracy…particularly one where people have been brainwashed into thinking they have to vote D or R for their vote to matter, which really makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy.